we are supposed to be seeing how even consciousness is impermanent, liable to arising and passing away and thus not fitting to be regarded as me or mine. And not just believing it, nor just accepting this after having pondered over it with a 'modicum of discenrnment', but more than this: 'knowing and seeing' it as such.

Here is the problem for me. I'm sitting in meditation and can perceive feelings arise and pass away. No problem - feelings are not self. I can perceive how thoughts appear and disappear (not with perfect clarity - rather murkily - but enough to know that thoughts do come and go), I can perceive how states of mind can change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. No problem - states of mind are not self, since they are also liable to change & alteration. But through it all, some awareness is present. In fact, more present than usual. That awareness is consciousness, aware of the other four khandhas. But how on earth could consciousness see that it isn't the 'one who knows' the one who is witnessing all of this arising and passing away, *but rather* is actually just as dependent upon a cause as the other constituents of existence, unless it witnessed it's own dissolution? And that does not make sense. A man can stand by the side of the road and see that another man has been run over by a truck. But if he himself gets run over by the truck, he is no longer a witness, but rather the victim. And he won't witness himself 'standing there', and then: 'no longer standing there' - his last perception will just be, 'truck'. And a loud bang. But he won't perceive his own absence. How could he, if he is no longer there to witness it?

I welcome any advice that can be given. Feel free to wake me up by any means possible. Because this doubt needs to be cleared up.

with metta.

Last edited by manas on Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

This is an interesting thing about consciousness, it cannot cognize its own ending. It can certainly take an object which rises & falls, but it itself cannot cognize its own end. It is impossible.

So I guess is that one can know this only in retrospect with another, existing, consciousness.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Alex123 wrote:This is an interesting thing about consciousness, it cannot cognize its own ending. It can certainly take an object which rises & falls, but it itself cannot cognize its own end. It is impossible.

So I guess is that one can know this only in retrospect with another, existing, consciousness.

Alex,

then what was the Buddha's Enlightenment, then? How did he clearly know, as clearly as I can see my own hand before me, that 'consciousness is not self'?

(edited out part)

m.

Last edited by manas on Wed Aug 01, 2012 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"

"On the western wall, lord."

"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"

"On the ground, lord."

"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"

"On the water, lord."

"And if there is no water, where does it land?"

"It does not land, lord."

"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food... contact... intellectual intention... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or increase. Where consciousness does not land or increase, there is no alighting of name-&-form. Where there is no alighting of name-&-form, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."

manas wrote:then what was the Buddha's Enlightenment, then? How did he clearly know, as clearly as I can see my own hand before me, that 'consciousness is not self'?

Through the proper use of inference. There is no other way. Same about Parinibbana. One can't know it directly because there is no knowing there to know it, right? Also since Buddha did not come out of Parinibbana, He had to use inference. What else?

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

we are supposed to be seeing how even consciousness is impermanent, liable to arising and passing away and thus not fitting to be regarded as me or mine. And not just believing it, nor just accepting this after having pondered over it with a 'modicum of discenrnment', but more than this: 'knowing and seeing' it as such.

Here is the problem for me. I'm sitting in meditation and can perceive feelings arise and pass away. No problem - feelings are not self. I can perceive how thoughts appear and disappear (not with perfect clarity - rather murkily - but enough to know that thoughts do come and go), I can perceive how states of mind can change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. No problem - states of mind are not self, since they are also liable to change & alteration. But through it all, some awareness is present. In fact, more present than usual. That awareness is consciousness, aware of the other four khandhas. But how on earth could consciousness see that it isn't the 'one who knows' the one who is witnessing all of this arising and passing away, *but rather* is actually just as dependent upon a cause as the other constituents of existence, unless it witnessed it's own dissolution? And that does not make sense. A man can stand by the side of the road and see that another man has been run over by a truck. But if he himself gets run over by the truck, he is no longer a witness, but rather the victim. And he won't witness himself 'standing there', and then: 'no longer standing there' - his last perception will just be, 'truck'. And a loud bang. But he won't perceive his own absence. How could he, if he is no longer there to witness it?

I welcome any advice that can be given. Feel free to wake me up by any means possible. Because this doubt needs to be cleared up.

with metta.

what sprang to my mind was the "continuation of consciousness" as mentioned in the cetana sutta, not consciousness itself, so maybe one could be aware of the passing away of a "continuum" of consciousness?I am also reminded of P.A.Payuttos discussion of the Dependent Cessation sequence where he notes in an apendix that it is possible that the wording means "when X ceaces to be a problem Y ceases to be a problem"

so to tred on shaky grouns as I am aware there are probably BIG holes in this, if consciousness is not being a problem then it could see the cessation of the continuum of consciousness?

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

manas wrote: I welcome any advice that can be given. Feel free to wake me up by any means possible. Because this doubt needs to be cleared up. with metta.

Okay ... I will try to wake you up. Literally. I agree, consciousness can't observe its own non-existence. But it can observe that it has been existent, non-existent and is now existent again.You wake up in the morning: consciousness is present. You remember that you were awake the night before, and consciousness was present. You observe the gap between the two. Consciousness may have been present intermittently (in which case the argument applies to the bits in between) but let's assume you slept soundly. Consciousness was not present, was it? It arose as you awoke, and will pass away when you go to sleep again. That is validated by repeated observation ... is that close enough to 'observed' for you?

I'm sitting in meditation and can perceive feelings arise and pass away. No problem - feelings are not self. I can perceive how thoughts appear and disappear (not with perfect clarity - rather murkily - but enough to know that thoughts do come and go), I can perceive how states of mind can change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. No problem - states of mind are not self, since they are also liable to change & alteration. But through it all, some awareness is present.

When you are seeing these things come and go you are also seeing the arising and dissolution of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a singular unit which illuminates other objects, but it can be easy to assume that. It is a process that is bound up with the object. So when you see the dissolution of a thought or feeling, you are also experiencing an instance of dissolution of mind consciousness, so on and so forth for the other 5 senses.

In experience the flow of consciousness is more or less seamless, but that seamless flow is made up of many fluctuating processes and lacks any real singularity. Because of this plurality you don't necessarily have to experience consciousness stopping altogether at once, in order to see that it is impermanent and not-self. Though that is supposedly possible through higher meditative attainments.

So it isn't as if there is an individual who paradoxically needs to observe that he has died. Even as your state of being conscious (as opposed to knocked out or whatever) persists, its lack of permanence is potentially noticeable. Un-proliferative mindfulness can reveal this lack of singularity. But it isn't easy, since this general assumption of a core in ourselves or things has been with us for a long time, and all of our individual perplexities are tied up a little differently.

Consciousness is the presence of a dhamma at one of the six-sense doors, as opposed to a separate thing in and of itself.

That "presence of a dhamma" dissolves due to anicca, but it is not self-aware of its own dissolution. Rather, it is known by the subsequent "presence of a dhamma" or "absence of a dhamma" that is qualitatively different to the earlier experience.

I thank all who have replied. Sorry I cannot express my appreciation individually at this time. I have so many things on my mind to do with lay concerns. I wish life were more simple; but that cannot be had by mere wishing...anyway I am already reflecting on your helpful answers.

metta

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

Huh? The topic was "thinking", one aspect of consciousness of several aspects. And knowing what is or what is not, has been considered to be thinking because it is assigning a name to an object. Assigning a name requires thinking a name before it can be assigned.

Your post was about thinking - the topic isn't... the topic is about consciousness (vinnana) and its impermanence (aniccata)

Thinking doesn't need to be introduced into the topic, and as I said, the absence of vittaka and vicara (which collectively cover all aspects of thinking) can be discerned/perceived without introducing the need for self-referential thoughts.

retrofuturist wrote:.. and as I said, the absence of vittaka and vicara (which collectively cover all aspects of thinking) can be discerned/perceived without introducing the need for self-referential thoughts.

At some stage you may wish to read A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma, edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi.It should provide some illuminating insights into your current line of enquiry and others.with metta,

Ben

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Consciousness is the presence of a dhamma at one of the six-sense doors, as opposed to a separate thing in and of itself.

That "presence of a dhamma" dissolves due to anicca, but it is not self-aware of its own dissolution. Rather, it is known by the subsequent "presence of a dhamma" or "absence of a dhamma" that is qualitatively different to the earlier experience.

So do you mean consciousness is always aware of something, even if it's just an absence?

"In conceiving consciousness, bhikkhu, one is bound by Mara; by not conceiving it one is freed from the Evil One." [BB, CD, page 907, part of SN 22.64.]

"And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He dismantles form ... He dismantles feeling ... He dismantles perception ... He dismantles volitional formations ... He dismantles consciousness and does not build it up.

And what is it that he abandons and does not cling to? He abandons form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... He abandons consciousness and does not cling to it.

And what is it that he scatters and does not amass? He scatters form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... He scatters consciousness and does not amass it.

And what is it that he extinguishes and does not kindle? He extinguishes form ... feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... He extinguishes consciousness and does not kindle it."

I find it helpful to look at suttas where a comprehensive survey of what is impermanent is given. For example, in MN147 there is the list below which is all inconstant, stressful, and not fitting to regard as "This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am."

the six sense bases:eyeearnosetonguebodyintellect

their objects:formssoundsaromasflavorstactile sensationsideas

and:whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the [eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, intellect] as a mode of feeling, a mode of perception, a mode of fabrication, or a mode of consciousness